pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
If the post is resurrecting, I vote for the F6F, and and post war, the F8U. Either might not be the finest but the title is "favourite".
Favourite Naval Fighter (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agree totally with the F6F. A great contribution by what could be said to be a lesser known aircraft.
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
My vote would go to the Fairey Fulmar. It got the Mediterranean convoys through and its endurance made it an excellent CAP fighter able to sit for several hours at altitude. Much as the Firefly did over the British Pacific Fleet in 1945.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'm sticking with my 3 June 2021 reply, the F4F. Although I really like the FM2.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
For the 40s I'm still going with the Corsair.
Viking1066
Brigadier General
The A6M2b. It's hard to chose one after WW2 because I really like the way many of them look.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
From my post earlier in this thread (several years ago), I'll go with the SBD.
While it was not designed as a fighter, it could, if needed, stand it's ground.
That being said, there's a great many notable fighters that served in naval air arms during WWII but none really qualify as my absolute "favorite".
I will say that the late war IJN types were really impressive and had some clean lines, like the N1K1-J, which I give a nod to as sort of favorite.
While it was not designed as a fighter, it could, if needed, stand it's ground.
That being said, there's a great many notable fighters that served in naval air arms during WWII but none really qualify as my absolute "favorite".
I will say that the late war IJN types were really impressive and had some clean lines, like the N1K1-J, which I give a nod to as sort of favorite.
cammerjeff
Tech Sergeant
I know it wasn't the best of its era in the late 1930's but I always liked the folding wing version of the French parasol D 371 the Dewoitine D 376. But I like odd things, I have read that the manual folding wings took almost an hour to fold or unfold.
Not exactly a WWII airplane, but I've always loved the F4B/P-12. Beautiful airplane, good performer for its time. For actual WWII I gotta go with the F4F, a stalwart fighter of the Cactus Air Force. In the hands of guys like Marion Carl, John L Smith and Joe Foss among others it handled business quite well.
Post war, The Fury series, and in Vietnam/Cold War, the mighty and awesome F-8 Crusader, best of the Century Series, as it was contemporaneous with the F-100, F-102, etc. The F-106 might be the exception, but since it never left CONUS and saw no combat, its hard to say.
Post war, The Fury series, and in Vietnam/Cold War, the mighty and awesome F-8 Crusader, best of the Century Series, as it was contemporaneous with the F-100, F-102, etc. The F-106 might be the exception, but since it never left CONUS and saw no combat, its hard to say.
Glider
Major
I second the Zero, a real performer in the early days of the war, with an exceptional range for its time. It also looks good.
buffnut453
Captain
I, too, like th A6M. Mrs B-N likes the F4U Corsair. I guess we were designed to have a combative relationship.
Postwar, I'm torn between the Hawker Seahawk and the Sea Vixen FAW.1. I realize many will think I need therapy for the last mentioned…but I DON'T CARE!!!!
Postwar, I'm torn between the Hawker Seahawk and the Sea Vixen FAW.1. I realize many will think I need therapy for the last mentioned…but I DON'T CARE!!!!
Glider
Major
Well, I am old enough to have worked on a Sea Hawk, and am a retired Psychotherapist so get in touch if you have trouble sleeping.
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
Would you like to talk about it?
A4K
Brigadier General
Probably the Corsair and Zero for me, though I do love other types aswell.
Post-war the A-4 all the way!
Post-war the A-4 all the way!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
When my Uncle transferred to the Enterprise after the war (he was done with subs!), the Chief tasked him with finding a "Sky Hook" and without missing a beat, told the Chief that he'll be sure to point it out if the Navy ever used airship carriers again.
As impressed as the Chief was with my Uncle's quick wit and knowledge of Naval aviation, he wasn't happy that his joke failed, so he sent Uncle on some other task instead (not sure what it was, Uncle Fred never said).
buffnut453
Captain
All good choices, especially the first two.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
There is no argument that the F6F suffered more operational losses during action sorties than the F4U. If we look more closely, however, some interesting facts emerge.
Looking at NACS table 1 on page 14, I found that Hellcats flew 95 percent of their total wartime action sorties from carriers. In contrast, Corsairs flew only 15 percent of their sorties from carriers. It is a well established fact that operating from carriers is far more hazardous than from land.
Crunching the numbers, I found that one Hellcat was lost operational for every 193 action sorties flown from carriers. In contrast, one Corsair was lost every 139 action sortie flown from a carrier. This means that the Corsair had a higher operational loss rate than the Hellcat when operating from carriers. Furthermore, the majority of Corsairs lost during these sorties had all the later modifications, and were not the early birdcage variety (which had many of the teething problems discussed here).
Interestingly enough, the Corsair had a LOWER operationally loss rate when operating from land than did the Hellcat. This is difficult to explain but it is a fact. One Hellcat was lost every 218 action sorties as compared to one Corsair every 338 action sorties.
As stated earlier, operational losses can stem from a multitude of causes, so it's impossible to breakout those aircraft lost during landing from those lost to variety of other reasons.
Looking at NACS table 1 on page 14, I found that Hellcats flew 95 percent of their total wartime action sorties from carriers. In contrast, Corsairs flew only 15 percent of their sorties from carriers. It is a well established fact that operating from carriers is far more hazardous than from land.
Crunching the numbers, I found that one Hellcat was lost operational for every 193 action sorties flown from carriers. In contrast, one Corsair was lost every 139 action sortie flown from a carrier. This means that the Corsair had a higher operational loss rate than the Hellcat when operating from carriers. Furthermore, the majority of Corsairs lost during these sorties had all the later modifications, and were not the early birdcage variety (which had many of the teething problems discussed here).
Interestingly enough, the Corsair had a LOWER operationally loss rate when operating from land than did the Hellcat. This is difficult to explain but it is a fact. One Hellcat was lost every 218 action sorties as compared to one Corsair every 338 action sorties.
As stated earlier, operational losses can stem from a multitude of causes, so it's impossible to breakout those aircraft lost during landing from those lost to variety of other reasons.
Zippythehog
Staff Sergeant
- 1,096
- Jan 7, 2017
I am curious, is your data set exclusively from the USN, or did you include operational experience from the Commonwealth?
